Continuing Rant Thread - Get it Off Ya Chest here

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
gas guyz
shop deals on amazon
Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Danscraftbeer said:
Perfectly? That is an overestimation on anyone's theory or perspective and undeserving of any one individual and at most an insperational target but an unattainable one at that.
I posted that when pissed, how did I go?
Click to expand...
Dam Sprung . I thought I was going to get away with it . Well spotted
 
Danscraftbeer said:
Perfectly? That is an overestimation on anyone's theory or perspective and undeserving of any one individual and at most an insperational target but an unattainable one at that.
I posted that when pissed, how did I go?
Click to expand...
Marvellous. You managed to make not one iota of sense. Could run for politics if you can keep it up.
 
Sales of beer in Britain's pubs, bars and restaurants have fallen by the biggest margin for five years, figures show. Around 35 million fewer pints thats in 3 months .
 
wynnum1 said:
Sales of beer in Britain's pubs, bars and restaurants have fallen by the biggest margin for five years, figures show. Around 35 million fewer pints thats in 3 months .
Click to expand...
I would say the bulk of this is due to pricing and non smoking. Sadly people are looking at cheaper alternatives which potentially have adverse effects on their bodies and the health system.
 
Farking Malcolm T.....

Gets up and basically says " Its unfair that any member of my party should get booted out because they didn't bother to check if they where eligible to be elected..its just not fair...sniff...sniff"

Its up to the candidate to ensure that they are eligible to be elected

Labor have been doing vetting for a number of years, so why cant the LNP
 
All this stuffing about over eligibility is becoming a massive yawn and a bore.

Couldn't they just all agree to legislate that if you have or acquire Aussie citizenship you are automatically divested of any others under our laws? Problem solved.
Or is that just too easy and simple?

I was born overseas, and as I remember I was required to renounce the citizenship of my birth when I became naturalised, and surrender my then passport. Why on earth do we even allow dual citizenships? A pox on that. You are either an Aussie, whether by birth or adoption, or you are not.

Of course, the High Court has recently done the dirty on us by taking a very narrow and strictly legalistic interpretation of that provision in the constitution. Normally, legislation or a constitution etc is interpreted by looking a the intent of it in the first place, and with all the debates and records such as Hansard etc that went along with it. I suspect they didn't want to admit that at one stage Aus might have been a tad racist, and that the provision was really intended to keep out the likes of, pardon the term, "Asiatics and other non-British individuals".
 
warra48 said:
All this stuffing about over eligibility is becoming a massive yawn and a bore.

Couldn't they just all agree to legislate that if you have or acquire Aussie citizenship you are automatically divested of any others under our laws? Problem solved.
Or is that just too easy and simple?
.
Click to expand...
Yep, too easy and simple. They cant keep themselves busy enough chewing up tax payers money doing constructive things.
 
warra48 said:
All this stuffing about over eligibility is becoming a massive yawn and a bore.

1.
Couldn't they just all agree to legislate that if you have or acquire Aussie citizenship you are automatically divested of any others under our laws? Problem solved.
Or is that just too easy and simple?


2.
Of course, the High Court has recently done the dirty on us by taking a very narrow and strictly legalistic interpretation of that provision in the constitution. Normally, legislation or a constitution etc is interpreted by looking a the intent of it in the first place, and with all the debates and records such as Hansard etc that went along with it. I suspect they didn't want to admit that at one stage Aus might have been a tad racist, and that the provision was really intended to keep out the likes of, pardon the term, "Asiatics and other non-British individuals".
Click to expand...

1. Its other countries that are the issue and the way they view who is a citizen of their country and if they are elegible for rights of said country..etc... You cant legislate that realy. You basically have to change the constitution. And that aint gunna happen now is it :)

2. I agree 100% with the High Court. This bit is very clear , and that is what the court upheld. Its up to the electee to check their status

( The current wording of Section 44 ) **

…disqualifies anyone who is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.

But this was the wording debated in 1897, a few years prior to federation:

… has done any act whereby he has become a subject or citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a Foreign Power.

In other words, it could have been argued that the alternative wording only seemed to disqualify people who had made a positive step to acquire the citizenship of another country.

But the wording we ended up with is much wider, and appears to only look at whether someone is technically a dual citizen, irrespective of their personal actions.

The change probably came at a debate in Melbourne in 1898, but we don't know why it was made.

The result, the expert paper notes, "seems to confirm that [the updated wording] is intended to disqualify persons with dual citizenship regardless of whether they acquire their other citizenship voluntarily or involuntarily".

** text stolen from the ABC news website
 
Last edited:
With the administrative resources these pollies get when they are campaigning for positions, as well as the presumption that they are mentally fit and smarter than the average bear, wouldn't checking the basics for eligibility to hold office be the first thing they'd check off the list???
Bit like lying on your resumhey?
 
Yep and this happened previously in the late 90"s and the high court ruled on it then.

They have to sign a declaration stating when entering federal politics!!! They should be made to pay back everything as they were not entitled to it and you can bet your bloody balls if we received monies we weren't entitled to us they would chase us for every cent. Just a bunch of thieves looking after each other. Don't worry if you get caught you won't have to pay anything back! the *******s

They are criminals because that's what we would be if we ripped off the gov.

It's not ****** hard to find out if you are a citizen or entitled to anything from a foreign country.
 
I wouldn't qualify then, because I get a very small part pension (pocket money, basically) from working for 10 years in New Zealand, so I'm entitled to a benefit from a foreign nation.
 
I don't know if that would disqualify you warra. As long as you are not a citizen of a foreign country. But I really have no idea. If you did want to enter federal politics you could just give up that pension and renounce any foreign citizenship just like all federal members of parliament should have done before they signed their declaration. I'm sure the gravy train of politics would compensate that part pension.
 
warra48 said:
Couldn't they just all agree to legislate that if you have or acquire Aussie citizenship you are automatically divested of any others under our laws? Problem solved.
Or is that just too easy and simple?
.
Click to expand...

What? And the next thing you know they'll actually be appointing politicians based on meritocracy. You must be crazy!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top